I am not familiar with non-alcoholic drinks other than water and soda. I usually am okay with just a water when I am the DD or not feeling the alcoholic drinks available. After reading this article and talking to others, it seems like I have been missing a big portion of the beverage market.
I guess more ways that I am ignorant to the situation, I was always okay with just a water. I am not too familiar with non-alcoholic beverages. I can imagine if the demand is there, which apparently is true after this article, regular bars may want to start looking at it as an option. That would probably be a great way for bars to introduce a "drink responsibly" program.
I guess my question is, why can't you get the same experience at a regular bar? I grew up in a pretty small town so whenever I went to the bar with friends, I could just get a Pepsi or something similar if I was the DD. The bartender never pressured me to drink and neither did my friends. I always felt like that if I said I do not drink or if I was the DD, people would back off. I can see the societal pressure whenever going to the bar to drink, but is it really so much that you cannot resist? I am genuinely curious.
My good friend actually came to visit me recently and they "lost" her checked bag. I say "lost" here because they "knew" where it was, but the plane kept getting delayed. Apparently it ended up on a separate plane that happened to arrive at the same airport. They originally told us to wait at the airport until it arrived, assuring us it was only going to be another 30 minutes. We ended up leaving, without her bag, 2 hours later. They said they would call us when it arrived. No such luck. We went back to the airport in the morning and it had just shown up and nobody knew why they were holding it. I understand if they misplace the bag, but to string us along for almost a whole day waiting on a call from them that never came is really just a miserable experience.
Personally, I have a moral issue with it. Bees are living creatures. No amount of tech will ever replace the beauty of a living, breathing creature. This moral issue can be translated to any other creature that we are affecting. They depend on us to be good to them and treat them with the same respect we show any other creature, and we depend on them to sustain us and the planet as a whole.
This is an honest question: do you really see no issue in replacing bees with robo-bees? Do you really believe humanity can just technology our way out of every issue we face? What happens when the whole system collapses?
This was odd, intriguing and just down right neat. I honestly started reading and couldn't stop. It felt like every scroll would introduce me with a new way to configure an N-Wheeled car that I would have never dreamed about.
I think what the user above you is trying to say is that there are many factors that go into economic performance. Tax on the wealthy is not the only factor and to say that is the reason for the economic advantage would be a bit of a stretch. Every country is very different in almost too many ways to get a real, true comparison.
Care to cite that second half? I know raising taxes to an extreme may cause some issues but I thought we currently have some of the lowest taxes on the richest people?
Very nice write up! Concise and to the point. I've never had a whiteboard interview before and honestly, I don't know if I could do it. I understand why big name companies do it, but it just feels weird as a requirement. My first interview out of college consisted of them having me explain inheritance in Java and what an abstract class was. It was quite underwhelming for all the studying I had done.
While I agree with you, I am not sure what the alternative you are searching for is. Either you don't buy it, or put in enough diligence to find out more about the product you are purchasing. I would assume a normal person would put in the amount of effort that somewhat equates to the value of what they are buying. I would never spend days researching the best brand of umbrella to buy (not knocking umbrellas) but I would if it was a mouse or maybe keyboard. The mouse has a higher perceived value to me and makes it worth it. Also, word of mouth is still relevant and probably always will be. If my friends/family enjoy a product, I am inclined to believe I will too.
Like everything else online, do your research. I assume we all know plenty of people who have taken online reviews at face value, I have done it myself. Like most other things on the internet, they can be faked. It is sad that people take advantage of good faith systems like this and do not feel the consequences.
Side note: Having the consumer group be named "Which?" and to include the question mark in it makes it jolting to read in the middle of a sentence. I can't tell if I like the name or dislike it a lot.
I think my original statement stands with this example as well. Codes of conduct try to standardize interactions. It tries to get rid of the "unknown". I think they can make sense in a business sense. You would want your employees to all act roughly the same towards each other or those around them (customers). On the other hand, I don't think we would need a "Code of Conduct of Life" for basic human interaction outside of the workplace.
I believe "treat others as you wish to be treated" should be taken from a much higher approach than "if you like to be hugged, hug others". I've always seen it as more of "respect others and they will respect you." I still think it can apply to this situation though. Instead of setting social rules, we should show respect for the people we are interacting with.
Would you be able to give other examples of this obsession with rules?
From this, and this alone, I'd like to imagine that people just want to clear up the unknown. Social interactions are almost always different from one person to the next. Social norms do tend to keep things pretty similar but the whole range can vary wildly. Maybe this is just a way to narrow the range? I don't think it is a great way to handle things that make you uncomfortable and I also don't think uncomfortable is always a bad thing.
I think a big part in communication lies in moderation. Instead of dumping a huge list of things someone can do differently, give it to people in small, easily doable chunks. It makes it much easier to change when the change is small. Work slowly towards the end goal and it should hold more people to the actual change. It would be hard to get people to just give up air travel/their car just outright.
>I feel like there is something wrong with our system when people get to vote on things that will not only never effect them negatively
I really think you should take a step back and re-read this sentence. Is this really what you intended? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you only want people to vote on things that will have a negative effect on them which seems counter intuitive to voting to begin with.
I can't agree with this more. Seems like so many people would rather bicker and moan about the "real issue" behind climate change than actually get out there and try something new. I am glad Europe is trying to fight this battle. They are trying to fix it, it may not be the end all solution but it is a step towards one.
I do not understand the bitterness on both sides. Yes, people will still find ways to need a car, it just happens like that. Not everyone lives the same life or are in the same geographical location. People still find uses for horses. On the other side, people find ways to not have cars. Just because you need one everyday doesn't mean my single friend Bill who lives downtown NYC needs one too. Everybody has their life, let them live it the way they want to.
I can understand this but at the same time it could possibly go the other way. What if the person sold the company because it was going downhill? What if it wasn't properly managed and the whole thing was sold just to get rid of it? I would say someone who has experience building and selling a company has value but not in every situation and it isn't always 'light years' ahead.
It is so sad that these kids need to be punished for the actions of their parents. They are now missing an important part of their education due to a backwards belief held by their parents. I seriously doubt any of these parents will take the time to home-school these kids in the correct fashion or at all. I am just in disbelief it needs to come to this.
That makes sense. Adding more things only complicate the system more and once the original "something" is changed or tweaked, now the rest of the system needs updated to balance again.
It seems like a lot of people miss this point. If you can't pay the legal minimum to your employees, then something must change on how you do business. I think small business is important but so is smart business.
I agree with your sentiment. I don't recall this being such a widespread thing. I think it is fine to scold the people who originally made these remarks (I myself do not remember who particular started the "Learn To Code" platform) but we should leave it at that. Just getting more upset about it and involving journalists who were never originally involved is a bad idea to just keep upsetting more and more people.
I think these certain circles are quite small but the emphasis is put on them and many people, whether they agree or not, are put into the circle for viewing the "Learn to Code" meme as toxic. I agree that telling blue collar workers to learn to code originally was tone deaf and these journalists should be scolded for it but I also assume that not every journalist was on the "holier than thou" train.
We should just be better to each other. Don't fight their ignorance with the same ignorance, it is just making the world a meaner place in my opinion.
I think another point of the article (that I at least read into, maybe too much, I am not sure) was that having merit/skill is luck based in itself. To give an example, whenever I play a video game with my friends, they are usually a lot better than I am. I play probably just as much as them but they are inherently better. I don't think either of us worked harder, we all play roughly the same games and all grew up playing together. I am just not as good at them. Was this me not working as hard/harder as them or was it them being lucky and they were born good at those particular skills? I feel like my skill cap at the games we play are much lower than them and they usually rank much higher than me even though we put in the same amount of hours. Personally, I would say it is luck.